On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 1:18 AM, ianek <janek37= @gmail.com> wrote:

On 17 Maj, 08:48, Jonathan Jones <e= yeo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Jonathan Jones <= ;eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:27 PM, ianek <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 17 Maj, 05:55, Pierre Abbat <p...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday 16 May 2012 20:19:41 Lindar wrote:
>
> >> > > We have red chickens and cows.
> >> > > Are the cows red?
>
> >> > Also, "we" =3D "I and who else?"
>
> >> > mi'a ponse lo xunre jipci .e lo bakni =97 doesn'= t say what color the cows
> >> are.
> >> > mi'a ponse lo xunre jipci je bakni =97 false, as no = chicken is a cow.
>
> >> Aionys says that it doesn't make that assertion. Accordin= g to him, "we
> >> are a husband and a wife" is {mi'a me lo nakspe je f= etspe}. So even
> >> such simple things like logical connectives are controversial= in
> >> Lojban... uinai
>
> > It's aionys, not Aionys, and I don't say that.

Sorry, I've only used the capital A because it was the beginning = of
the sentence.

> > {lo} is not explicit about
> > whether we are speaking of individuals or masses/sets, so it is p= ossible to
> > have either interpretation. There is nothing controversial about = this.
>
> > To quote the tiki page on xorlo:
>
> > lo's inner quantifier indicates the number of things we'r= e talking about,
> > but in a slightly different fashion. "mu lo bakni cu bevri l= o pipno" means
> > "Five cows each carried a piano individually". "lo= mu bakni cu bevri lo
> > pipno" is ambiguous as to whether they did it individually o= r as a group.
> > To be clear about group-ness, use loi and friends.
>
> Also, I feel I should point out that in {mi'a me lo nakspe je fets= pe}, it
> is obvious that "lo nakspe je fetspe" is implicitly referrin= g to a group
> because of "mi'a", and for no other reason.

{lo nakspe je fetspe} refers to "one or more things that are nak= spe je
fetspe". If being nakspe je fetspe doesn't imply being simultanous= ly
both a husband and a wife, then {lo jipci je bakni} doesn't imply that<= br> some chicken is a cow. I don't see how it's not analogical. The
sentence about cows and chickens also refers to a group.

A group can be contradictory things. Individuals can not. It is poss= ible for a group to be cows and chickens, it is not possible for individual= s to be cows and chickens. It is possible for a group to be husbands and wi= ves, it is not possible for individuals to be so. The reason he says {mi= 9;a ponse lo xunre jipci je bakni} is false is because he is referring to t= hem as individuals. The reason {mi'a me lo nakspe je fetspe} is true is= because I am (implicitly) referring to them as a group. "lo" is = not specific as to whether a multitude of something is being addressed as a= group or individually, although typically the individual interpretation is= implied, as I said. The reasons why it is obvious that "lo nakspe je = fetspe" should be interpreted as a group is because {mi'a} refers = to groups- specifically, the group consisting of "The speaker and othe= rs unspecified but not the listener", and because an individual interp= retation doesn't make sense, because it is impossible for an individual= can't be a wife and a husband.
=A0